Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Monday, 04-Dec-2023 19:40:26 JST cjd

   in reply to

   • mc.fly
   > to stop their meddling in our elections
   
   Russia doesn't meddle in elections nearly as much as people think. And not because they wouldn't WANT to, but this stuff is expensive and the US Empire already has a near monopoly on it.
   
   While Russia's over here throwing a few bucks at a candidate, the Empire with their FED money tree can afford to outright create candidates - which is why you see so many presidents who were virtually unknown before they ran.
   
   The Empire also had the bright idea to buy out all of the print media companies who had been bankrupted by the internet and use them to pump their candidates and cast everyone else as a "dangerous extremist".
   
   The origin of the Russian interference meme is mostly a story that low level Empire functionaries tell themselves so they can justify running game on pretty much every election in the world.
   
   ---
   
   > Putin has to die painfully
   
   Unlikely. The one calling the shots here is the US (really the Empire), and they don't really care about Russia, their real concern is China. Any threat to Putin creates risk of China taking over Russia which they will never allow. What they really want is to get Russia and China into a war with each other.
   
   If Europe would grow enough geopolitical sense to start making decisions for itself, it wouldn't want to kill Putin either, because Europe wins by playing Russia and the US off against each other to get favors from both sides.
   
   ---
   
   > I am working in a company
   
   Very cool, I'm a fan of new technology in general. If a new technology changes what is the most efficient way to solve a problem, that's a win for everyone. It grows the economy, makes everyone richer, and makes the country more powerful.
   
   The thing I'm noting from the beginning is about using regulation to forbid the most efficient solution to a problem because it makes everyone poorer, shrinks the economy, and makes the country weaker.
   
   ---
   
   If I were a European decision maker, I would go all-in on low cost low complexity small nuclear. Relax regulations, establish exclusion zones around nuclear generation sites so there's a plan in case of an accident, etc. Point would be to push electric cost to lowest in the world, invite in Bitcoin miners, make it known to everyone that we have the power. Industry will follow.
   
   Then the second thing I'd do is drill Polish gas to undercut Russian gas dependence.
   
   Third, I'd invest in oil refining capacity and coal-to-oil conversion in order to become a net exporter of gasoline and diesel AND to drive up the global coal prices to make Chinese BOS steelmaking less profitable and thus pump global demand for European steel.
   • NEETzsche likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     mc.fly (mcfly@milliways.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Dec-2023 19:40:28 JST mc.fly

     in reply to

     @cjd I agree with several points of your statement.

     The US wants to make Europe an obedient puppy and Russia wants to run europe into a wall.

     I think we have to make Russia lose the war in the Ukraine very hard to stop their meddling in our elections. To stop trying to influence the Population in the western world and for that reason alone Putin has to die painfully so noone else wants to have that point.

     I also think that we should push that russia falls apart after the war.

     I do not think that everyone wants to pick each others pocket with the decarbonisation.

     That is the thing europe can proof - that your country does not fall apart and that a industry has to run on hydrocarbons. In the Steel production coal can be replaced by Hydrogen and the same is in the potash production for concrete.

     I am working in a company that plays an important role to change that for Europe. The probably most important outcome of that is that we have a chance to prove that it works. We can decarbonize the vast mayority of the industry and society, even without nuclear power.

   • Embed this notice
     cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Monday, 04-Dec-2023 19:40:29 JST cjd

     in reply to

     • mc.fly
     China is good at smooth talking but they're bigger polluters than anyone. But end of the day, the problem is structural. All power is either direct military power or is the threat of military power, and modern militaries run on hydrocarbons. It's not just the jets, ships and tanks, but the factories backing them up.
     
     That's why you have "economy smaller than Italy" Russia which cannot be ousted from Ukraine.
     
     Decarbonization is basically the geopolitical equivalent of a poison pill. Everybody's talking about it because everybody wants the other guy to take it - so that they can pick his pocket while he's knocked out.
     
     The US wants to make Europe into an obedient little colony like Canada, Russia wants to run Europe into a wall so the EU will collapse and they can bully each country individually, so they're both encouraging Europe to take the pill.
   • Embed this notice
     mc.fly (mcfly@milliways.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Dec-2023 19:40:31 JST mc.fly

     in reply to

     @cjd Sure. Can't sell to us. That will work for a lot of them.

     The main problem on the medium run seem to be India and the Arabic world. China seem to slowly at least change their mind.

   • Embed this notice
     cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Monday, 04-Dec-2023 19:40:32 JST cjd

     in reply to

     • mc.fly
     Problem is, the more you decarbonize, the less you are able to "force" anyone to do anything.
   • Embed this notice
     mc.fly (mcfly@milliways.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Dec-2023 19:40:33 JST mc.fly

     https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-into-caves-cop28-president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels

     We will have to force the rest of the world to get on the train to abandon fossil fuels.

     Is it true that not every country questions the connection of burning fossil fuels and global warming - or denies global warming at all.

     But if you look closely you will hear that opinion in fossil energy export countries a lot.